Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 5955946" data-attributes="member: 94389">I posted a similar idea on the WotC forums, so I get where the OP is going. In my version I simply started with the 4e Baseline and gave those actions points:Minor = 1 pointMove = 2 PointsStandard = 3 points.You get 6 points per round.So, in the core game, you are simply using minor, move, and standard. In a module, you would use the points. Points eliminate the "many attacks per round" except in the case where you forgo a move and a minor and do 2 standard action attacks. Personally, I am ok with this. 4E combat was slower in part because people were looking for "something" to do with that pesky minor. Here, the clear choice is fold it into move and attack again. More attacks on a turn = faster monster death. Attacks are relatively easy to resolve since they are a known quantity. Besides, in this module a 3 point attack is a "Basic" attack.Here's where it gets interesting:Special attacks like "Power Attack" would cost 1-3 points, with each point being a plus to hit and damage.There could be an "off-hand" strike that does Min [W] damage for 2 pointsYou could have a 1 point move, 2 point move, 3 point move, etc. Each point allowing 1/4 your speedSpellcasters could use metamagic like "Maximize" for an additional 3 pointsSpellcasters could layer metamagic Like Maximize (3), Enlarge (2),  Fireball (3) and have to spend 8 points for the cast: 6 for this turn and continue casting until next turn before finishing the cast and it goes off: Opening them up for meaningful cast-interrupts.That be a lot of granularity for some people, so it would have to be a module. DMs would likely also have to "price" things carefully, since they likely would not be priced in core nor in the module itself (a very big list). And since this "price list" would likely be large, would slow the game during combat, even if players focused only those prices they might use (fighters would care about metamagic, e.g.)P.S. I think Fighters would benefit greatly from this design. I would like to see the lion share of 1-2 point actions be either maneuvers or riders to fighter maneuvers or rogue maneuvers. A few metamagic for spellcasters, and few "defensive" reactions for all: Such as "Block" being a shield-wielding reaction available to all using a shield, or "Dodge" being a 1 or 2 point reaction.Feat requirements for many of these make sense as well, to limit the list to a manageable size per character. The best part: Those players sticking with minor/move/standard fit right in. With the playtest "one round to rule them all" it is really just 6 "minor" actions rolled into one. For DMs having a hard time adjudicating the playtest action economy, I suggest mentally tallying up the actions as I've described: hit 6 and the character is done. For Example: Character moves (1 point)  about 1/4 speed to monster and draws weapon (1 point), attacks the monster (3 points), moves back behind the fighter (1 point) for a total of 6 points. Or character moves (2 points), Draws Weapon (1 point), attacks (3 points). Or character gets a potion and drinks it (2 points), casts a spell (3 points), then moves behind a wall (1 point).Having a granular module does not remove the "one action to rule them all", but a 6 point action economy allows for 3 action economies to work together: The 6 point economy, the Minor/move/standard economy (or partially bundled points if you will), and the one action economy (fully bundled points)</blockquote>

Verification